Yesterday I headed to Ad:Tech in Sydney to check out the keynote “The Future of Television“. It had a really interesting panel, which consisted in a group which right across the spectrum of television as we know it now (and how we could know it in the future). Representatives were from television production company, Shine360, Broadcasters Nine and SBS, Freeview Australia, and thrown in for good measure was a representative from Sony and Microsoft.

Television graffiti
Part of the discussion I enjoyed the most was the look at what television means - and the perspective of whether ‘television’ means something in your loungeroom, or something mobile. While it’s evident that society would generally deem ‘television’ as any screen you can carry in your pocket, the presenters on the panel emphasised that until metrics from viewers online are classified as ‘ratings’, then small-screen viewing simply won’t be counted as television from an industry perspective.
One presenter pointed out*, Broadcasters would care more about the”screen” if mobile interaction counted as ratings. “Music industry didn’t care about digital until online sales existed – so until these metrics become tangible in regards to the business, they have no impact.”
And, let’s face it, this won’t happen any time soon with industry regulations being different across free-to-air and pay tv, which is amplified by the fact that online and mobile aren’t even classified as Broadcast according to Industry bodies.
Sony representative, Paul Colley, estimated that 50% of all TVs currently being sold are internet-capable, and this figure could be 80% of all televisions within three to four years’ time. The legal and regulatory questions around accountability of this content need to be addressed very soon in order to keep pace with technology, or we might find ourself in a situation where what we would classify today as “broadcast media” entirely without regulation.
One of the other debates I found most interesting was how to engage those viewers who increasingly want to interact with their television shows. This is, in reference to appointment television – this is not a question of whether people want to choose what they want to watch as per torrenting and YouTube, but a question for when people do want their viewing on shuffle**.
It’s no secret that people are more and more interacting with television via a second device, whether it’s checking in, tweeting about it or discussing it with friends on Facebook.
There are loads of studies looking at the increasing trend of people simultaneously watching tv and using online spaces to discuss these shows or interact with these show. The way we use media is changing.
The real question around this issue was how we interact with television: do we just want to converse around the show online, or want a deeper immersion?
The fine line between interaction needs to be balanced: how can we create an interactive environment to work with a show, not taking it over? How do we have a Twitter feed integrated with the show, without the amusing tweets taking centre stage?
A discussion I had with some friends outside the conference led to the discussion around how you could sync a mobile device and television so that they could work separately or concurrently (for example, could the tv show be broadcasting and additional interactive content work concurrently on an iPad? Could it be tweets, video extras, polls, ability to purchase items from that moment in the show, all sent out – and interactive – at the same time as the show? Could there be episode specific content, even when it’s a rerun?)
Iain MacDonald presented an awesome pic (the closest thing to it I could get was the image above) in the opening statement got me thinking: why do these devices need to be complementary? When would technology be available to sync all mobile computer devices in a room so that if I’m tweeting on one device, the television can optionally support additional content?
A fair point was raised that “multitasking” is a misnomer, where watching tv and reading email was not the activity of doing both at the same time, but switching your attention from one to the other. The ramifications of this is that the interaction work best if limited simply around ‘conversation’ rather than actually shifting the storyline, as per experiments of interactive television in the past decade.
The debate also launched into gamification of shows (and the revenue stream it could provide) and whether shifting shows into an experience would be a viable option – such as ‘playing’ the Biggest Loser, while you watch it, a suggested by Microsoft’s Kordahi.
There’s a fine line with interactivity around ‘forcing’ interaction, the panelist pointed out, where people switch off if they are instructed ‘how’ to interact, but the model should be to provide the tools, observe the behaviours of how people interact using those tools.
The Grey’s Anatomy iPad app could be the first reflection of networks taking advantage of this secondary-device behaviour, which both gamifies and creates a secondary revenue stream for traditional television long term. Do television networks need to begin owning that secondary space?
As Kordahi stated regarding mobile devices, “People don’t want to watch what’s on TV on a smaller screen, they want a companion app.” – which might very much be the case.
But, in the end, the same issue still applies: the metrics don’t exist to encourage traditional media to attempt these models and the laws and regulations aren’t in place to protect either the viewers or broadcasters attempting this.
What do you think? The question of if we should adapt is long gone, but it’s still very pertinent to ask ‘how?’ and ‘why?’.
What do you think – are ‘companion apps’ the way of television watching in the future? Or, with most of Australia’s broadcast being content which has often already broadcast in the US, would this model simply not be applicable?
Till next time,
Rach.
*Apologies, I was live tweeting so I didn’t have a chance to reference all the quotes. If you know, let me know so I can credit y’all. :)
** To reference a fabulous quote from my nineteen-year-old flatmate: “Television is like YouTube on shuffle.” Gold!